[philodox]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kurt IMHO APS and APX were easy to differ. Between APX and API the differences were smaller and audible only with good recordings. Between API and wav, I could not hear a difference most of the time. That helped me to make my decision for APX. For me the best compromise.

Really... that is strange. Usually APS and APX sound identical. I find that if I find an APS recording lacking it only makes a difference if I go to API.

 

[Alu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kurt You don’t rip MP3, you rip a CD to a wav file.

I know.

I didn't use the correct vocabulary. You may stone me.

 

[philodox]

hehe, everyone makes mistakes.

 

[TWIFOSP]

There are a lot of problems telling the difference between 320kpbs mp3 and cd.

1. The source is likely different. If you aren't using the same source as a comparison, you are introducing other variables which will change the sound.

2. If you're performing your own test, you aren't doing it blind.

Assuming those 2 things are done right, and you're doing a real blind test with out irregular variables, then I don't doubt that SOME people can tell a slight difference. HOWEVER, that being said, that isn't the same thing as telling which one is better. Just because there is extra detail in lossless, it doesn't always make the music sound better. Perhaps, just different.

I still say any difference you hear is a product of your source and not a difference in the music. Regular CDs are already lossy to begin with. They are already suffering from a 16 bit rate.

 

[philodox]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TWIFOSP 1. The source is likely different. If you aren't using the same source as a comparison, you are introducing other variables which will change the sound.

Exactly... even if you are using the same cd player for the test and using a MP3 CD the player will not necissarily play MP3's with the same fidelity as the CD's. It is made to play CD's... playing MP3's is just a feature.

 

[bundee1]

Im using Creative Media Source to encode the mp3s and wav files. I listened to them both on my Zen Xtra. I listened to many songs I know very well such as Cornelius Mic Check and Thank You for the Music. I remember how the notes are supposed to sound and they always sound that way when I listen to the cd. These 2 songs have great dynamic swings and panning effects as well as a lot of samples.

with 320 kbps I hear the music as flatter, greyer. The notes have less decay and sparkle.

Some songs sound pretty good in mp3 form but not enough to encode them all that way. Believe me, I want the mp3s to sound as good as cds, so I can have all 600 cds on this thing but its not happening. I cant enjoy the music as much because it doesnt sound the way its supposed to.

MP3s converted to wavs and played in a car cd player sound very good though. But then you have to take road noise (which could mask some of the deficiencies) and less than ideal speaker placement into account.

 

[Kurt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alu I know. I didn't use the correct vocabulary. You may stone me.

You missed the point completely. You made a fuss about how “silly” and “a waste” it is “putting so much effort in ripping mp3s”.
OTOH you promoted Lossless formats.

Both formats will get encoded from a wav file. And the first effort goes in ripping to this wav file, before encoding either to MP3 or lossless, i.e. is for both formats the same amount of effort.

Add that, AFAIK, encoding to Lossless takes much more time and resources.
So, the effort to become a lossless file from the same wav is quite bigger.

Your comments let people believe that it requires more effort to become a good MP3 than a good lossless, which is not the case. In fact the opposite is true.

 

[br--]

In the summer, because I was bored and curious, I performed tons of blind AB tests on high end equipment regarding lossy vs. lossless, mp3 vs. aac, 320kbps vs. 256kbps, vbr vs. cbr, cd's burned at 4x vs. 1x, etc, and came up with interesting results. It's important to note that before I performed these tests I belived that these differences were due to the placebo effect.

The equipment I used partly consisted of:
(Note: this is not my equipment - it is that of a fellow audiophile)
Coincident Total Victory II ($13,000)
Coincident TRS Extreme Speaker Cable ($1100)
Dehavilland GM70 Monobloc Amps ($9500)
Alchemist Forseti APD33A CD Transport ($2000)
Alchemist Forseti APD34A DAC ($2000)

Interestingly, the lossy vs. lossless comparison was the easiest to tell the difference and the 320kbps AAC vs. 256kbps AAC was the hardest. There was a clear and very obvious difference between the two on this system. When I changed from lossy to lossless, the size of the soundstage increased about 30%. What was also very clear was the improvement in impact, liveliness, detail, and decay. Impact and soundstage were much less subjective properties than the others simply because the huge increase in the soundstage was very apparent and the amount of impact that was missing when playing the lossy files after playing the lossless songs was so plain that it was shocking.

I also performed similar blind tests using an iPod and ER4S's. It was MUCH harder to notice differences, and most of the time I couldn't notice any difference at all. Equipment that can resolve pure, low-level detail, and source media that is well recorded is essential to hearing these differences.

 

[Mr Iriver]

Quote:

Originally Posted by br-- The equipment I used partly consisted of: (Note: this is not my equipment - it is that of a fellow audiophile) Coincident Total Victory II ($13,000) Coincident TRS Extreme Speaker Cable ($1100) Dehavilland GM70 Monobloc Amps ($9500) Alchemist Forseti APD33A CD Transport ($2000) Alchemist Forseti APD34A DAC ($2000) .

Wow, and I thought my shure's were expensive. That equipment must sound truly awesome.

 

[ricola_pak]

Quote:

Originally Posted by br-- Interestingly, the lossy vs. lossless comparison was the easiest to tell the difference and the 320kbps AAC vs. 256kbps AAC was the hardest. There was a clear and very obvious difference between the two on this system. When I changed from lossy to lossless, the size of the soundstage increased about 30%. What was also very clear was the improvement in impact, liveliness, detail, and decay. Impact and soundstage were much less subjective properties than the others simply because the huge increase in the soundstage was very apparent and the amount of impact that was missing when playing the lossy files after playing the lossless songs was so plain that it was shocking. I also performed similar blind tests using an iPod and ER4S's. It was MUCH harder to notice differences, and most of the time I couldn't notice any difference at all. Equipment that can resolve pure, low-level detail, and source media that is well recorded is essential to hearing these differences.

Thanks a lot for your explanation.

This is exactly what I thought. Unless you have $$$ equipment, for us folks with portable DAPs, we can't tell any difference at all between .wav or mp3s. That's why I was rather shocked at the very first post.

 

[Mr Iriver]

Bundee1, what equipment are you using?

 

[philodox]

Well, of course if you are at home and have access to the original CD that is preferable. Damn I wish I could hear those speakers. Must be nice.

 

[bundee1]

My home equipment is in my sig BUT when I compared the 2 file types I did it only on the Zen Xtra. The first day I got the player I was disappointed with the wav sound. I must have had EAX engaged because when I listened to wav files on the Xtra the second day (no EAX) they sounded great. Punchy, clean and detailed sound. I was so happy with the sound with wav files that when I switched to mp3 I was soo disappointed with the change.

 

[photographlondon]

Instead of using the Creative software to encode your MP3s I would suggest you try using the LAME encoder.

Check out the link posted earlier: bestmp3guide.com

 

[donunus]

A 320 MP3 might not sound as good as the uncompressed wav file it came from, but the difference is subtle on portable audio especially when using the latest encoders. When I listen to a 320 mp3 on my revealing and dynamic horn based system, It is less dynamic compared to the original cd track. The differences are subtle enough that the mp3 even sounds better on a good mp3 player compared to a portable cd player with a lesser quality headphone output. If we were in the world where 99999999999999999999999 gigs of storage were in a small portable was standard, I wouldn't have any comment to the saying "i cant stand mp3".
Thanks to mp3, I can make all my old selections into small files without actually losing quality. I'm talking about great songs that didnt have great recording quality to begin with. Believe it or not, I even have some songs that sound better as a 128kbps mp3 than its original uncompressed cd track